9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his proceedings in R.C. No. 3176/04/A3 dated August 14, 2007 has requested the second respondent to enter an encumbrance in respect of this property in the records. Seeking to quash the said order, the petitioners have come forward with this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. Admittedly, the property in question was originally owned by a company known as Arrow Pack (P) Ltd. A sum of Rs. 1.45 crores was due from the company towards sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 payable to the Commercial Tax Department. But the said amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration. It was contended before the Division Bench that charge may not be enforced against a transferee if he has had no notice thereof, unless by law, the requirement of such notice has been waived. It is also contended before the Division Bench that there was no notice issued to the petitioners in that case and there was also no materials to infer constructive notice. On those grounds the Division Bench has set aside the impugned order. In paragraph No. 22 of the said judgment, the Division Bench has held as follows: "In the present case, firstly, no provision of law has been cited before us that exempts the requirement of notice of the charge for its enforcement against a transferee who had no notice of the same. It remains to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us. Hence, we cannot hold that the first respondent had constructive notice of the charge." Applying the above principles, if the facts of the present case are analysed, admittedly there was no notice issued to the petitioners regarding the charge. There are also no materials available to infer constructive notice. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is nowhere stated that there is either actual notice or constructive notice to the petitioners. In view of the same, as provided under section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, and as held by the Division Bench of this court, the charge cannot be enforced against the petitioners. So the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the encumbrance entries made in the records a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
